With 21 players roster, the Canucks still have about $2.8m left. Assuming Alberts @ $800k-$900k, MG still has slightly under $2m to improve the roster. Should the Canucks try to sign a veteran centre as a backup plan?? Reasoner or Steckel for less than $1m?

Jovocop wrote:With 21 players roster, the Canucks still have about $2.8m left. Assuming Alberts @ $800k-$900k, MG still has slightly under $2m to improve the roster. Should the Canucks try to sign a veteran centre as a backup plan?? Reasoner or Steckel for less than $1m?

We will really need Corrado and Tanev to step up, and our forward depth scares me a little, especially up the middle. If I were Gillis I really would have been pushing for that Grabo contract at $3 million to shore up the center position. Maybe he tried

We will really need Corrado and Tanev to step up, and our forward depth scares me a little, especially up the middle. If I were Gillis I really would have been pushing for that Grabo contract at $3 million to shore up the center position. Maybe he tried

Corrado would most likely start the season in Utica. I would assume that MG would sign another veteran centre to challenge Schroeder, Lain and Gaunce for a spot. Steckel or Reasoner could come cheap and provide MG some options.

As for Grabo, I just don't think the Canucks have enough cap space to sign him.

Say what you will about Alberts, but $600k for what should be our 6th or 7th defenseman is good value, especially considering the improvements we saw in his game last year.

I can’t say I’m surprised or disappointed that we aren’t seeing much in the way of change on the roster. The big change was Tortorella. Most of our guys are in the midst of big money long term contracts which weren’t likely to have been moved. The FA market sucked and we are hamstrung by the lowering cap. I would have liked to see Burrows move in a “sell high” deal in an effort to get younger and grittier.

One thing’s for sure, Gillis and Tortorella are serious about getting some young guys into the lineup or at least leaving the door open for 3 or 4 roster spots in training camp. I still expect we’ll see a veteran backup type and a centre invited to camp that the rookies will have to compete against.

Say what you will about Alberts, but $600k for what should be our 6th or 7th defenseman is good value, especially considering the improvements we saw in his game last year.

I can’t say I’m surprised or disappointed that we aren’t seeing much in the way of change on the roster. The big change was Tortorella. Most of our guys are in the midst of big money long term contracts which weren’t likely to have been moved. The FA market sucked and we are hamstrung by the lowering cap. I would have liked to see Burrows move in a “sell high” deal in an effort to get younger and grittier.

One thing’s for sure, Gillis and Tortorella are serious about getting some young guys into the lineup or at least leaving the door open for 3 or 4 roster spots in training camp. I still expect we’ll see a veteran backup type and a centre invited to camp that the rookies will have to compete against.

Herb,

I think you are right, and the salary cap constraints definitely paint a picture similar to that. It's a gamble on Gillis' behalf because this lineup hasn't shown they can win when it matters for two years now. If the Torts experiment doesn't pan out then some of their assets will be worth even less next season. I suppose I was hoping that a core piece or two would be moved out this off season but as always its not often you see good "hockey" trades these days.

...we want to be offensive — I want to make sure you understand that — we also have to be fighting for the puck on a more consistent level. And in the six, seven, eight games that I watched I don’t see it. That is a mindset, I don’t think it is about bringing in a bunch of guys that are going to fight. It’s more about an overall attitude about how we play. The team looked like it was pretty easy to play against at times in the tapes I watched.

Betting on largely the same group certainly is a gamble, but it may just be the best bet at this point in time. Like I said earlier, I’m not entirely happy with the lack of change, but we haven’t seen much movement at all throughout the league aside from a few UFAs changing homes.

This very well may be a bridge year for the Canucks, but the present and future are a bit uncertain that is for sure. Coaching changes often times reap big gains, so it would not be unprecedented for this group to look revived and rejuvenated with a new voice behind the bench. How could you not like the idea of this group becoming hard to play against?

Pretty obvious there is considerable hope from management that Schroeder, Gaunce, Horvat, Shinkaruk and Corrado can step up big time within the next 2-3 years. While not likely, it is within the realm of possibility that this can happen.

To me, the big question marks are Kesler, Kassian and Booth. I’m confident the Sedins, Luongo and most of the defense will be fine, but these three guys need to have big years, which is very far from a sure thing.

While I'm sure Gillis will give out a few invites to those vets still blowing in the wind, I don't expect another veteran signing up front. The vets who the kids will be competing against are Richardson, Santorelli and Schroeder.

JS is no longer waiver exempt, but it'll be entirely up to him how his future as a Canuck unfolds. Richardson was brought in for his versatility and experience, he could prove to be invaluable once injuries pile up. If there is one bubble player up front who an aspiring rookie would bump to waivers, it's Santorelli. I suspect the farm will have a difficult time scoring next year and Santorelli's skill-set and experience would warrant top line minutes.

The Torts interview piece yesterday I think sheds a little light on what we should expect. Torts will be looking to see who has the fight and mental fortitude to do what needs to be done through camp and the first month or so of the season. Those that don't will be cast aside in a hurry. Gillis has left about $3 mil in cap space to enable them to look at some youngsters, have injury space and make moves. Considering the "cap hell" they were supposedly in that's not a bad job.

So what you see is what you get....for the first 15 games anyways. After that it is a good bet that some changes will be made.

herb wrote:I would have liked to see Burrows move in a “sell high” deal in an effort to get younger and grittier.

Me too.

That being said I am starting to wonder whether the value of a legit top six forward (with a medium term contract, high dollars and moderately high cap hit) really is what many of us think.

After all, one of the ways Mike Gillis so effectively took this team to another level under the last CBA was by exploiting his cap space to make trades that he won handily in terms of on-ice performance (but "lost" from a payroll/liability perspective)?

I know David Booth hasn't been a raging success here but he was long perceived as a bona fide scoring forward and we scooped him up for peanuts on the strength of a couple of vets and a willingness to pay out the rest of his deal. Ehrhoff we got for even less.

Alex Burrows is a good player and can be an important part of a team but is there much reason to think trading him would be fundamentally different from trading those other guys? The CBA environment is more or less the same and this season there is even less cap space available than there has been traditionally.

dbr wrote:That being said I am starting to wonder whether the value of a legit top six forward (with a medium term contract, high dollars and moderately high cap hit) really is what many of us think.

Fair enough.

Burrows’ deal certainly isn’t horrible, and as long as he continues to score 25 goals and 50 points we will be getting good value. A 32 or 33 year old Burrows doesn’t scare me much, but a 34 or 35 year old Burrows might. I would guess the last year of that deal is probably going to be bad value, but we’ll see.

My main concern with Burrows is that my ideal scenario sees Burrows getting bumped down the lineup rather consistently over the next three seasons. A $4.5M veteran third line winger sounds expensive to me, but of course there is no assurance that any of these youngsters will demand top 6 minutes in the next few seasons and I would be surprised if Burrows’ deal became immovable.